Residents urge township to probe nearby sober‑living home; committee says licensing is state function

Residents at a packed Lebanon Township Committee meeting on Oct. 16 urged officials to investigate a nearby sober‑living/halfway house they say is operating without local notice or necessary approvals.

"We were never notified," Nicole Jocek said, describing repeated deliveries and groups of residents arriving at a house on Ravine Road. Jocek said the property appeared to be licensed for "11 beds" and questioned how that many people could be supported by a septic system and the township's rural infrastructure. "It's extremely frustrating and disappointing," she said.

The concern prompted multiple residents to raise safety, zoning and fiscal issues. David Taylor, who said he lives at 912 Dean Road, said vehicles and equipment have appeared at the property and that neighbors feel unsafe having transient populations and frequent comings and goings nearby. "There are a lot of misappropriated taxpayer funds," Taylor said, arguing private operators profit from state and federal funding for recovery services.

A committee member responding to the public comments explained the legal limits of local authority. The member said state agencies — primarily the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs — handle licensing and some construction inspections for facilities the state classifies as recovery homes. "Because of the type of situation they are, the inspections for construction are not done by our construction official," the member said, adding that federal case law treats people in recovery as having a disability, which constrains local zoning restrictions that single out such residents.

Committee members acknowledged the tension between state licensing and local zoning. They advised residents to document concerns and promised to coordinate with the zoning officer and local legislators to press state officials and clarify whether local approvals were required. One committee member said the township's zoning officer (John Fleming was mentioned in meeting discussion of litigation) had been made aware of the property; the committee asked staff to circulate the state attorney‑general report referenced by residents and to follow up with state representatives.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the facility could strain a rural road and septic infrastructure, pose emergency‑response challenges in winter, and affect property values. Township officials said they will investigate whether local zoning approvals were obtained and will contact state representatives to seek clarity about enforcement and oversight.

What happens next: The committee asked staff to gather the materials residents cited — including a February 2024 state report residents referenced — notify relevant departments, and raise the issue with state legislators and the township's zoning officer. Several residents said they plan to bring the matter to the local press and to continue following up with the committee.

Quotes reflecting the exchange

"They're fraudulent. They have tax benefits. They're not actually helping people," Nicole Jocek said, urging the township to examine the facility's operations.

"The state handles that," a committee member said, explaining the limits on local inspection and citing federal court rulings on disability protections for people in recovery.

"We need to get ahead of this," another resident said, urging the township to press state officials and to consider where such facilities can be located.

Ending: The committee closed public comment after extended testimony and directed staff to assemble the documentation residents cited and to consult with the zoning officer and state representatives; no formal enforcement action or vote was taken at the meeting.